Yes actually. Mike (Jesus) took some comments (fish) written buy people (dude Jesus got the fish from) on the internet (sea) and then reposted them (multiplied the fish) for thousands of people to read (eat) while adding his own opinion (sermon) and he did it with out expecting any sort of payment from the recipient (ditto.)

" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"

Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.

" Standard Shipping Rates to Australia
Delivery within 18 to 32 business days"

Something tells me I might not have read the book in time for the discussion...
Before you say anything, I know I could get the kindle version faster then that but I am only prepared to pay more then $5 for an ebook if i know I would go back and read it again and again because unlike the physical version i can not lend it to friends and family and then sell it second hand. Oh well, sorry Rebecca. You nearly had a sale out of me thanks to techdirt but it's not going to happen today.

Dear God, what have you done?!?
My google reader says there are 81 comments on this article so I click through to laugh at the trolls but I'm greeted with your comment only. I've been robbed of 80 comments!! (Unless of course techdirt believes your comment is worth 81 standard comments....)

From the linked article:
"The fake site has been taken down and the number has been blocked by the authorities, but will no doubt reappear on another compromised server with a new number in due course."

It takes time before someone that gets caught in these type of things reports it to the authorities, it then takes a bit more time for the authorities to confirm it and shut it down. Who knows how many people will get sucked in before then, and then it is just a matter of rinse and repeat with a new batch of victims.

I have the fact the she gave her confession after being told by a bunch of lawyers that if she says what they tell her to say then things will go easier for her, which is pretty much what you said. None of this is proof that it happened that way, just that her legal advice told her "do this or things will get a lot worse for you."

I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'm also not saying Mike is wrong. All I want is the actual data, not what someone said to get a reduced sentence.

Yet I notice that neither you nor any other troll or shill here has bothered to present any other side, you just keep repeating that Mike is something which he is obviously not in the vain hope that maybe, just maybe, someone might believe you.

Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are less than truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Impeaching the credibility of each confession is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are lying to the court.

Do you have any evidence indicating that these confessions are truthful? If so, I'd love to hear it. Basing your arguments on what someone has said in order to get a reduced penalty is one thing, but I don't see you or anyone else putting forth any evidence indicating that the accused are telling the truth to the court.

"Mike believed it was true too, or else he wouldn't have allowed it to be posted. It's obviously a joke, and the fact that Mike and his flunky jumped on it shows their bias and lack of critical thinking skills."

"It's a meaningless term conjured up by the entertainment industry to pejoratively label anything they don't like to convince people that there's something nefarious afoot with sites which are otherwise perfectly legal."

Reminds me of what happened when they started with the 'pirate' label. Kinda makes me want to start my own website, something along the lines of TheRogueSite.org or maybe TheRogueTavern.net

I was halfway through a reply continuing with the site A/site B, child porn/infringement comparisons but decided that playing by your rules isn't going to benefit anyone. You see your analogy falls apart when you have a look at the differences between child porn and copyright infringement.

Firstly, child porn is classed as a criminal matter where as copyright infringement, in most cases, is a civil matter.

Secondly, child porn is child porn regardless of how you look at it. Digital media may or may not be infringing on someones copyright and it is very difficult for someone who is not the rights holder to know which it is. I notice that you skipped over my reference to youtube/viacom.

The problem for copyright maximalist and other apologists is that the specious copyright arguments fall apart when applied to examples like real life. (You can ignore this sentence, it's just me having a dig at you and feeding the trolls [ie. you.]) :)